• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Teen Jailed For FB Comment, On Suicide Watch

Diving Mullah

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
2,112
Reaction score
864
Location
Planet Earth
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why this kid remains in jail is completely beyond me.


Justin Carter, the Texas teen jailed over a sarcastic Facebook comment, is reportedly on suicide watch.

"He's very depressed, very scared, and ... concerned that he's not going to get out," Carter's father, Jack, said in an interview with CNN Tuesday. "He's pretty much lost all hope."

Carter, 19, was arrested in February of this year following an argument he had on Facebook regarding "League of Legends," an online video game.

Justin Carter, Teen Jailed For Facebook Comment, Reportedly On Suicide Watch


...And this country continues its spiral towards a police state.

Sadly this one outcome of Militarization of our Police Force. Police are there to Protect and Serve. But often they do forget the serving part. They often act more as soldiers in a warzone than officers of peace walking in the streets. Granted the kid said something stupid, and he is an adult and he should take responsibility and the consequence. Maybe taken to H.Q, interview, overnight stay, and maybe some mandatory community service. But instead wasting taxpayer money to punish and prosecute someone and subsequently damage and scar and more likely ruing his life and his family's life for an imaginary crime!

This is what happens when a nation becomes collectively paranoid and scared of everything including his own citizens.

Diving Mullah
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
23,864
Reaction score
17,081
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
lol. That's like every chat log on the millions (billions?) of LOL games played every day. That's just one game too, add in COD and everything else and we'd have to jail half the population. Do people even know Riot games? Sold for almost a BILLION dollars to some foreign country (S. Korea?). That's all based off one, every humble-sized, free to play game. Dominant in e-sports too. Huge changes in entertainment going on and so many are in the dark, crazy. To anyone who plays League, everyone knows that online competitive game communities are TERRIBLE, they are all lowest common denominator smack talking, petty, and entirely expected.

I think people should be wary, I just think they should see that it's game related smack talk and if that's the only instance (like he's not talking to friends or family that way too) let him go. Part of this is a generation gap. Many parents have no clue what's going on, online, it's all nefarious and linked to sex, drugs, or crime.
 
Last edited:

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
28,065
Reaction score
18,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
No, that's what you inferred.

I see no other reason to bring up those people you apparently know. :shrug:

But regardless, it's your position that the comment described in the OP was "clearly joking" presumably because the guy ended his threat with "lol, jk" to signify that he was joking. With et me post something from an article about a school shooting in California.

So, kid makes offhand comments about shooting up a school, says he's joking and that's enough for people like you and the friend who didn't report what he said to dismiss it. Kid then shoots up a school. Good luck with that attitude.

And as I and others have already stated, we're fine with an investigation. But keeping him in jail for months is far from warranted.

There you go again, claiming things have to be one extreme or the other.
 

ThePlayDrive

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Messages
19,610
Reaction score
7,647
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And as I and others have already stated, we're fine with an investigation..
You also said:

There is no difference as the commenter was clearly joking. Even if there was reason to be concerned, several months in prison is not justified.

Again, you think the guy was "clearly joking" and you implied that there was no reason concerned.

So, again, I post this:

"The whole weekend I was with him, and he was joking on and off that he was going to come to school and shoot people," student Josh Stevens said.

"He had it all planned out, but at the end of the weekend he said he was just joking."

Chris Reynolds, whose son was friends with Andy Williams said the boy had stayed at his house on Saturday night and talked about his plans.

"I even mentioned Columbine to him. But he said: 'No nothing will happen, I'm just joking."

He now regrets not taking some kind of action to prevent the shooting.

BBC News | AMERICAS | School shooting: The warning signs

Would you like to reexamine your stupid and irresponsible comment about someone "clearly joking" and your similarly dumb implication that there is "no reason to be concerned"? Or would you like to continue pushing that nonsense?
 

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
28,065
Reaction score
18,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You also said:



Again, you think the guy was "clearly joking" and you implied that there was no reason concerned.

Yes, in my eyes he was clearly joking. But like I said before, I don't have issue with law enforcement if they decided to investigate it.

So, again, I post this:



BBC News | AMERICAS | School shooting: The warning signs

Would you like to reexamine your stupid and irresponsible comment about someone "clearly joking" and your similarly dumb implication that there is "no reason to be concerned"? Or would you like to continue pushing that nonsense?

I don't believe it is nonsense at all. 98% of the time people say dumb things like this they ARE joking. But once again, I understand law enforcement investigating in case it is one of the rare cases the person is serious. But imprisonment for several months without trial is not justified.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't know if anyone's brought this up yet, but under the assumption that the answer is no...

Here's the statute the kid's been charged with:

"Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies;
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury; or
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building; room; place of assembly; place to which the public has access; place of employment or occupation; aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance; or other public place; or
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service.
(b) An offense under Subdivision (1) or (2) of Subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (3) of Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subdivision (4) of Subsection (a) is a felony of the third degree."

This, to me, is a recipe for police abuse of power (particularly the first section in bold). Do they really mean a reaction of "any type"? What would that cover, exactly? How would you prove intent to cause a reaction? You can't just rely on the fact that there was a reaction, because that would place cops entirely in charge of whether or not you've committed a crime. For the same reason, you probably can't just rely on the language itself, except to the extent that you're applying standards related to incitement. So the long and the short is that this law seems like an excellent way for cops to round people up for a while despite lacking any good reason to do so. The wording of the statute is vague enough that it's a borderline constitutional violation, but that's a whole different ball of wax.

Hopefully this kid'll be sent home soon enough. They can't keep him indefinitely, and I have a hard time imagining there'll be a conviction based on so little evidence.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
21,130
Reaction score
8,271
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
He was jailed for a month before being questioned and, as far as I know, he still has had no trial.

Hard to believe he wasn't questioned for a month, it doesn't matter if he is never questioned before trial, the right to be questioned isn't a Constitutional one, infact the exact opposite is part of Miranda warning. Once a citizen was seen by a judge and the bond set (the court system routinely sets the trail date that isn't for months) habeas corpus has been met. Not the judge's fault nor a violation of the Constitution for a citizen to be held prior to trial if they can't make bail.

Thousands of citizens sit in jail for months prior to their trial, for a wide variety of alleged crimes. The phrase 'and time served' means the citizen's sentence will include the time they sat in jail awaiting trial. I'll guarantee this- not one citizen will be able to appeal their sentence based on not being questioned for a month NOR being held for months because they couldn't make bail.

I'm not defending the system, I am describing it.
 

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
28,065
Reaction score
18,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Hard to believe he wasn't questioned for a month,

it doesn't matter if he is never questioned before trial, the right to be questioned isn't a Constitutional one, infact the exact opposite is part of Miranda warning. Once a citizen was seen by a judge and the bond set (the court system routinely sets the trail date that isn't for months) habeas corpus has been met. Not the judge's fault nor a violation of the Constitution for a citizen to be held prior to trial if they can't make bail.

Thousands of citizens sit in jail for months prior to their trial, for a wide variety of alleged crimes. The phrase 'and time served' means the citizen's sentence will include the time they sat in jail awaiting trial. I'll guarantee this- not one citizen will be able to appeal their sentence based on not being questioned for a month NOR being held for months because they couldn't make bail.

I'm not defending the system, I am describing it.

And I think the judge overstepped his authority on this. There is absolutely no evidence against this kid. I am curious if the judge even understood the context of the conversation. Probably a crotchety old man who has no idea the nature of online games.
 

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hopefully he'll sue for wrongful arrest when this is all over.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
21,130
Reaction score
8,271
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
And I think the judge overstepped his authority on this. There is absolutely no evidence against this kid. I am curious if the judge even understood the context of the conversation. Probably a crotchety old man who has no idea the nature of online games.

Well first it is good to see you have dropped the Habeas thing- that wasn't true.

Now as far as you know, and let's face it you don't have a clue what evidence the police gathered and it is strictly your opinion, there isn't enough evidence against the 19 year old adult.

Time will tell... :peace
 

Geoist

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
28,065
Reaction score
18,417
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Well first it is good to see you have dropped the Habeas thing- that wasn't true.

When did I ever say that? The principle behind habeas corpus is to protect people from unlawful detention. I believe this kid is being unlawfully detained.

Now as far as you know, and let's face it you don't have a clue what evidence the police gathered and it is strictly your opinion, there isn't enough evidence against the 19 year old adult.

Normally, we would have heard by now some specifics on why they decided to continue to hold him. A gun found. A sketch of the school. But no, nothing beyond his FB comment.

Time will tell... :peace

Yes, we will see.
 

notquiteright

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2012
Messages
21,130
Reaction score
8,271
Location
okla-freakin-homa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
When did I ever say that? The principle behind habeas corpus is to protect people from unlawful detention. I believe this kid is being unlawfully detained. Normally, we would have heard by now some specifics on why they decided to continue to hold him. A gun found. A sketch of the school. But no, nothing beyond his FB comment. Yes, we will see.

Again, you use your opinion as fact, which it is not. Habeas corpus was not violated, compare the actions with President Lincoln suspending Habeas corpus in 1861 where dozens of dissidents were rounded up and detained with no charges filed nor any court action taken, they simply sat in jail. A judge has been involved since before the 19 year old adult was arrested. Bond has been set by a judge. He has a lawyer.

Still more of your opinion- normally we don't hear what the DA's office has as evidence unless the defense claims outrageous things the DA's office feels compelled to dispute OUTSIDE of court. Trials are not held in the papers, TV or in blogger's columns. The Defense certainly isn't going to reveal what evidence the DA has- that works against them. And lets face one other fact- most who take great umbrage in this detention are only citing the father's side of the story- one that has been shown to be faulty. Those of us who want to learn more have brought in the additional detail.

The fact is no one involved has an obligation to taint the jury pool with leaks so a few armchair judges can pretend they have some say in the matter.

Let's not forget what he was charged with- making a terroristic threat, doesn't require a 'gun', a map, plan, list, bunny ears or tail....

IF this citizen has the charges dropped I'd say he has a good case for a law suit, but IF is the biggest word in the English Language.

Since we both agree time will tell, wait and see seems a good plan as most of what drives your position is faulty opinion.
 

thinkforyoursel

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2013
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
314
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Funny how after seeing Travon Martin's pot smoking online activities many believe he deserved to be killed.

Now this kid post death threats online and people are screaming ...only because he's in jail.

What a country.
 
Top Bottom